Featured

Now that we are in the holiday season, take a look at the variety of programs offered at a branch near you! Take the kids to a storytime with Santa, watch A Christmas Carol live, prepare for holiday meals, and much more.

You are here:

It's 2011 and I Am Not Living on the Moon. What Happened?

February 17, 2011

When I was a kid, I envisioned a very different 21st Century than the one I currently find myself living in. The world just doesn’t develop in the way that we science fiction fans would prefer. Let's take a look at the world predicted by one of the greatest science fiction films of all time, 2001: A Space Odyssey. According to this movie, by now we would have the following:

None of these things have happened yet, nor do they appear likely to occur in the near future with the possible exception of commercial space tourism. Instead, we live in a very different world. I would argue that the world we live in today is just as science-fictionally amazing as the world of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Consider that we have:

It turns out that the "future" we currently inhabit is one dominated by developments in cyberspace rather than outer space, except for unmanned satellites and space probes. Some of this was indeed predicted by science fiction. The idea of using satellites as communications relays was put forth by none other than the co-creator of 2001, Arthur C. Clarke. The term cyberspace was coined by William Gibson in the 1984 cyberpunk novel Neuromancer, and the concept of avatars was invented by Neal Stephenson in his 1992 masterpiece Snow Crash.

But, we true sci-fi fans still want to live in outer space! All that’s really holding us back is the first 100 miles. Once you’ve reached Earth orbit, the rest of the solar system is within easy reach. Current launch technology using chemical rockets is simply too expensive ($5000-$10000 per pound) to permit routine travel to Earth orbit or to allow the construction of very large structures in space. Consider that the International Space Station required 14 separate launches (2 more are scheduled) and $100 billion just to create a place where a handful of people can spend a few months in Earth orbit at any given time.

So, how do we get to the future of moon bases, space stations and interplanetary colonization? The answer may be as simple as taking an elevator. Again, we find our old friend Arthur C. Clarke was way ahead of us with his novel The Fountains of Paradise. In this book, he popularized the idea of a space elevator, previously conceived by the Russian scientist Konstantin Tsiolkovsky way back in 1895.

A space elevator is simply a very long cable, along which elevator cars would travel at a very leisurely rate powered by electricity rather than rocket fuel. This cable would have to be constructed of a material with an incredibly high strength/weight ratio, given that it would be tens of thousands of miles long. Much to the delight of aspiring citizens of the solar system, we now have a candidates for this super material: carbon nanotubes and graphene. NASA is pursuing development of space elevators by awarding prizes for advances in the relevant technologies. I may yet be able to retire to the low-gravity paradise of the moon. Florida is so second millennium.

Comments

HAL had true human level intelligence, and thus when he made a mistake, he was aware of it. In order to protect himself from being disconnected (i.e. killed), he decides to kill the crew. That's self-awareness. I'm pretty sure Watson doesn't try to kill anyone who tries to turn him off.

This is why the idea of human-equivalent intelligent machines is a rather thorny issue. See the Terminator for a possible really bad result. Also, would we owe a sentient machine civil rights comparable to those enjoyed humans? If not, why?

Examining these types of issues are exactly what the best science fiction does.

Watson, with all its Ken Jennings smashing trivia skills, is actually quite stupid. It may have an enormous database of trivia, that's the only thing it's good at. Ken Jennings, on the other hand, can drive a car, play baseball, and write a book about his Jeopardy experiences. Watson can't do that. ALL Watson can do is access a giant database of information and sift it for relevant information.

The same with Deep Blue, the chess champion computer. It's only good at chess. While Ken Jennings may not be the world champion, I'm sure he could learn how to play chess well.

Also, ask Watson how it's feeling today or what it thinks about cats. I don't think it could answer those questions that even a human toddler could answer, or at least to the same depth. Watson would probably state that cats are mammals of the genus felis. A kid would say they're cute and fuzzy and eat mice and are fun to play with and etc etc.